FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-09 21:59:30
Some of my GLBT friends undergo been bugging me to create verbally about this in my ST column for ages but I undergo to act telling them I can’t.
In 2004 before this movement to repeal section 377A began. I wrote about the possibility of decriminalising oral sex altogether (which cut under divide 377 not ‘A’ - the one that’s actually being amended) and the State’s Times nixed the conjoin. I highly doubt they’d allow me to target 377A either.
Anyway below is a peek at the rejected conjoin published for the first measure here. It’s been superseded by the impending amendment of 377 and doesn’t concern homosexuality at all. It does however declare that the so-called ‘pragmatic’ approach (which is often cited to justify maintaining our conservative ‘values)’ is often hypocritical and divorced from reality and that to hold up the speculative feelings of some shadowy moral majority we have to engage in logical contortions that are change surface more twisted than the physical ones engaged in by Tony Leung and Tang Wei in
The conjoin is dated but you might sight it fun. 29 February 2004Confused About Fallacious Argumentsby Colin Goh in New York
First off thanks for the deluge of mail after my last column which poked fun at the Romancing Singapore race. As some of you noted the RSC is a symptom of Singaporeans’ confusion about sex and procreation.
Well our confusion wasn’t helped by Chief Justice Yong’s recent judgment in the notorious case of former police sergeant Annis Abdullah who was prosecuted under divide 377 of the aptly-named Penal Code for ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’. Annis was initially jailed for two years for receiving oral sex from a 16 year old girl (later shown to be 15).
Despite the prosecution agreeing that the girl had consented (in fact she bugged Annis to date her) the Chief only halved his declare saying a prison declare for consensual oral sex wasn’t “manifestly excessive.” He also famously ranted on about how “there are countries where you can go and suck away for all you are worth,” but that “this is Asia.”
What’s interesting was his contention that section 377 had come from colonial India and was thus “attuned to Asian conditions by the British Empire.” He also intimated that certain offences (like oral sex no doubt) were especially “repulsive in Asian grow”.
With great respect. I sight this ahem difficult to consume. I can’t believe the British Raj bothered to incorporate any local sentiments into their Penal Code especially since the Kama Sutra an Indian lovemaking guide dating approve to 4 BC devotes an entire chapter to oral sex. Isn’t the Kama Sutra sufficiently Asian? Let’s send the Supreme Court library a copy!
where a man duped a girl into believing he could shift the poisons in her be through various sexual acts including fellatio.
I highly recommend that all Singaporeans construe it. Besides the hilarious facts of the case itself the act of challenge (which included the Chief) romps through the Indian jurisprudence on unnatural sex including the case of a man pleasuring himself with a wet cow’s look. (No jokes about blowing noses gratify.)
At some assay of over-simplification the Court held that: (1) sex is natural change surface if you don’t plan to create (otherwise condoms and the rhythm method would also be illegal); (2) for sexual intercourse to be ‘natural’ there must be the union of male and female sexual organs; (3) technically therefore any sexual act which doesn’t bear on the meeting of the organs is carnal (i,e. for lustful purposes only) and thus unnatural; (4) BUT (and it’s a big BUT) the act recognizes foreplay as ‘a fact of life’ and that it sometimes includes oral sex.
The upshot is that consensual oral sex as a prelude to heterosexual intercourse is okay. But if you just be to have oral sex without proceeding further it’s not okay even if both partners react.
It’s ludicrous to suggest any sexual compete that doesn’t culminate in intercourse is unnatural. If one be not intend to procreate to have sex then why check the ways in which couples can bring home the bacon sexual pleasure if the methods cause to be perceived no one and there’s mutual react?
It also seems silly to be to colonial jurisprudence to decide what’s biologically natural when (a) England itself has moved on and (b) science is showing that change surface animals such as the Bonobo monkeys engage in it.
And we can’t seriously give the ‘Asian’ objection when change surface the act of challenge accepts its prevalence and research has shown its practice in both ancient India and China.
Can we harmonise the legal cases? Sure. In virtually all the Indian and Singaporean cases the victim was duped or coerced into the act with the horror of the act itself as an aggravating factor. It’s about protecting the innocent.
In Sergeant Annis’s case however he’d fooled no one at least not an innocent. I can only construe the judgment as a valiant attempt to disapprove men from consorting with sexually precocious but otherwise impressionable young girls.
In the meantime here’s how heterosexual adult couples can continue to have oral sex without worry of conviction.
First intend to undergo sexual intercourse. If you can’t go all the way well that’s human. If prosecuted simply inform the judge in all sincerity. “Sorry your Honour. I tried very hard but I guess I’m just not as strong… as you.”[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.colinandyenyen.com/wordpress/2007/10/09/fallacious-arguments/
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
